Not necessarily simple. I don't really know what energy is.
Energy is conserved. This makes us think of it as some sort of "stuff" that can be changed from one type to another, but never created or destroyed. This is sometimes a good way to think of it, but not always.
You can talk about the velocity of an electron, but it isn't really right. You are really talking about the velocity of an electron in a given frame of reference, or relative to a given observer. You can get any value for velocity (up to c) by choosing another frame of reference. Length is similar. An observer at rest with respect to an object measures one length. A moving observer measures another.
Likewise kinetic energy can have any value. Just choose the right observer. So "stuff" isn't always the right way to think of energy.
Length and velocity are the space-like components of length and velocity 4-vectors. These have fixed magnitudes. The length 4-vector is simple in the rest frame. It is the length unaffected by motion, or perhaps when motion is purely in the time-like direction. Likewise, the magnitude of the 4-velocity is c.
If you multiply the 4-velocity of an object by its mass, you get the 4-momentum, whose magnitude is mc. The time-like component is E/c, where E is the energy of the object. This leads to $E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4$.
But this isn't entirely kinetic energy. In the rest frame, when kinetic energy is 0 and velocity is entirely time-like, this leads to $E = mc^2$. So is this some sort of kinetic energy of motion in the time-like direction?
Because of this equation, it is sometimes said that mass and energy are equivalent. But mass is not always conserved in particle interactions. When an electron and positron annihilate, the reaction product is two gamma rays. The mass is now 0, but the energy did not change. So this conception of energy isn't satisfactory either.
The energy of an isolated object isn't useful. If the universe contained just one electron, there wouldn't be much point to defining it's kinetic energy.
When one electron collides with another (or repels another), the masses are equal, so the relative velocity is all that matters.
It is somewhat artificial to choose a frame of reference, find the energies and momenta in that frame, and use them to calculate the outcome. You get the same outcome no matter what frame of reference you choose. Or equivalently, no matter what energy you choose. In that sense, energy is a fiction.
Perhaps it is just an accounting system. In a given frame of reference, the numbers before and after an event always add up to the same value.
When a photon strikes an electron, they both recoil. A large energy produces a large change in electron velocity. The velocity of the photon is of course always c.
As before, energy depends on frame of reference. In a given frame of reference, both electron and photon have definite energies (ignoring the uncertainty principle.) even though all photons travel at c, they don't all have the same energy. Short wavelength photons have more energy and kick harder.
An electron with an upstream velocity sees a blue shifted photon. It sees more energy in the electron.
Two sufficiently short wavelength gamma rays can collide and create an electron-positron pair. In a different frame of reference, one is red shifted to a radio wave and the other a much more energetic gamma ray. They still can generate an electron-positron pair.